Laura Carlson wrote: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:26:47 +0200, Shelley Powers >> <shelleyp@burningbird.net> wrote: >> >> >>> Laura Carlson wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> What about using a <summary> as a generalized element with <details> >>>> etc. Leif mentioned this previously. >>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jun/0045.html >>>> >>> This strikes me as an interesting proposal, and when it comes to Figure, >>> has been proposed by others[1]. The rejection of the idea, because of how >>> browsers currently implement the DOM for HTML4 puzzles me, since we're >>> changing the DOM for HTML5, anyway. >>> >> <summary> would be no problem in <figure> and <details> as far as parsing >> goes. In <table>, however, it would be a problem because in legacy browsers >> the element would be moved outside the <table> in the DOM. >> > > Maybe start thinking about a new generic term? > <synopsis>, <abstract>, <precis> come to mind. Others? > > Best Regards, > Laura > > I think if we all agree that whatever the element is, in plain English it acts as a "caption" (regardless of caption's use elsewhere), we could refer to a Thesaurus as an adviser of what would be a good term. [1] Unfortunately, label and legend appear, but so does inscription, which has possibilities. Shelley [1] http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/captionReceived on Thursday, 17 September 2009 15:12:20 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:51 UTC